Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39992309›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal2025

Artificial intelligence applied to electrocardiogram to rule out acute myocardial infarction: the ROMIAE multicentre study.

Min Sung Lee, Tae Gun Shin, Youngjoo Lee, Dong Hoon Kim, Sung Hyuk Choi, Hanjin Cho, Mi Jin Lee, Ki Young Jeong, Won Young Kim, Young Gi Min and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. State of clinical AI in 2026.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Min Sung LeeMedical AI Co., Ltd., 13F, 38, Yeongdong-daero 85-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06180, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9247-2432
Tae Gun ShinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Youngjoo LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dong Hoon KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea.
Sung Hyuk ChoiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hanjin ChoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Republic of Korea.
Mi Jin LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Ki Young JeongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Won Young KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Young Gi MinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Chul HanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jae Chol YoonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Jeonbuk National University, Biomedical Research Institute, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Eujene JungDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Woo Jeong KimCollege of Medicine, Jeju National University, Jeju, Republic of Korea.
Chiwon AhnDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeong Yeol SeoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hallym University Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea.
Tae Ho LimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jae Seong KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Incheon Sejong Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Jeff ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Joon-Myoung KwonMedical AI Co., Ltd., 13F, 38, Yeongdong-daero 85-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06180, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6754-1010
Kyuseok KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center CHA University School of Medicine, 155, Bundangnaegok-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 13524, Republic of Korea.
ROMIAE study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsEmerging evidence supports artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) for detecting acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but real-world validation is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of AI-ECG in detecting AMI in the emergency department (ED).

methodsThe Rule-Out acute Myocardial Infarction using Artificial intelligence Electrocardiogram analysis (ROMIAE) study is a prospective cohort study conducted in the Republic of Korea from March 2022 to October 2023, involving 18 university-level teaching hospitals. Adult patients presenting to the ED within 24 h of symptom onset concerning for AMI were assessed. Exposure included AI-ECG score, HEART score, GRACE 2.0 score, high-sensitivity troponin level, and Physician AMI score. The primary outcome was diagnosis of AMI during index admission, and the secondary outcome was 30 day major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE).

resultsThe study population comprised 8493 adults, of whom 1586 (18.6%) were diagnosed with AMI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for AI-ECG was 0.878 (95% CI, 0.868-0.888), comparable with the HEART score (0.877; 95% CI, 0.869-0.886) and superior to the GRACE 2.0 score, high-sensitivity troponin level, and Physician AMI score. For predicting 30 day MACE, AI-ECG (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.866; 95% CI, 0.856-0.877) performed comparably with the HEART score (0.858; 95% CI, 0.848-0.868). The integration of the AI-ECG improved risk stratification and AMI discrimination, with a net reclassification improvement of 19.6% (95% CI, 17.38-21.89) and a C-index of 0.926 (95% CI, 0.919-0.933), compared with the HEART score alone.

conclusionsIn this multicentre prospective study, the AI-ECG demonstrated diagnostic accuracy and predictive power for AMI and 30 day MACE, which was similar to or better than that of traditional risk stratification methods and ED physicians.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectrocardiographyMyocardial InfarctionAgedEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRepublic of KoreaAcute coronary syndromeAcute myocardial infarctionAI/ML-enabled SaMDArtificial intelligenceElectrocardiogramEmergency department

Identifiers

PMID39992309
PMCPMC12093146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.